|
|
| Improving the Court’s Response to Status Offenders |
| By jjie.org - Judge Michael Nash |
| Published: 10/14/2013 |
|
We are now approaching the last quarter of 2013 and the subject of status offenders and what we should do with them or for them is still an active subject of discussion within the framework of our juvenile justice systems, and rightfully so. This is so despite the fact that our courts, law enforcement entities, child advocates, communities and law makers have been talking about this issue for more than 40 years. My bookshelves are lined with reports, studies, journals, task forces and more on the subject. Will we ever get it right? Status offenses, as we know, commonly refer to conduct that would not be unlawful if committed by an adult but is unlawful only because of a child or youth’s legal status as a minor. Common status offenses include running away, incorrigibility, truancy, curfew violations, minors in possession of alcohol and tobacco and more. In Los Angeles, where I preside, we have had a court called the Informal Juvenile and Traffic Court (IJTC) for many of these offenses. In calendar year 2011, our IJTC handled approximately 65,000 citations including thousands for daytime loitering (aka truancy), curfew violations and possession offenses. In 1974, Congress passed the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) that, among other things, limited the placement of status offenders in secure detention or correctional facilities because of concerns that the delinquency system was inappropriately treating these youth as criminal offenders. Partially due to concerns of judges, JJDPA was amended in 1980 to allow the detention of status offenders who had violated court orders such as “stop running away” or “go to school regularly.” That exception, known as the Valid Court Order exception (VCO), has resulted in the detention of thousands of youth classified as status offenders. The VCO is still in effect in most states, but there are significant efforts to eliminate it if and when Congress reauthorizes the JJDPA, which it has not done since 2002. There are good reasons for this, and there are positive developments in this area. First, there is considerable research that has been done on adolescent brain development. We know that adolescents are different from adults. Adolescents are characterized by greater risk taking or sensation seeking and lesser ability to control impulses and resist pressure from peers and less likely to think ahead. We also know that as the brain develops and individuals mature into adulthood, these characteristics will decrease. Further, although holding youth accountable is important, it must be done in a way that does not harm them and endanger their normal development. In accordance with the above, research shows that responses such as secure detention of status offenders is ineffective and potentially dangerous. Rather than punish them, youth, particularly status offenders, are better served by being diverted from the justice system. When you couple that with community programs that include engagement of youth and their families as well as programs designed to meet their specific needs, the chances of achieving positive outcomes for youth and their communities are greatly enhanced. Judges can play a significant role in this process. In 2005, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) published the “Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines” designed to “Improve Court Practice in Juvenile Delinquency Cases.” With respect to status offenses, the Guidelines recommend that juvenile court judges and others should work to divert status offenses to alternative systems whenever appropriate. There have been many examples where judges have endeavored to do just that. Read More. |
MARKETPLACE search vendors | advanced search
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
|
Comments:
No comments have been posted for this article.
Login to let us know what you think